Prop 8 Activism Hits Austin

The relevant portion of HJR 6 (0.00 / 0)

SECTION 2.  This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Thanks for calling attention to this matter.  Perhaps the firm will pay more attention to donations made by its partners in the future.  Or engage in diversity training, as many firms do and as indeed the State Bar does.

The legislature made a segment of Texas population dependent upon attorneys to achieve equality.  Attorneys have a reciprocal obligation to assure these prospective clients that they will not suffer discrimination if they seek legal advice, and that (as has always been the cornerstone of legal ethics) there will be not even an appearance of impropriety.

Logic and an open mind are more useful than common sense.

---

by: othniel @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 03:27:36 AM UTC

Honestly (3.00 / 2)

while I might not judge the firm as a whole, I'd want to know if my lawyer didn't believe in full civil rights for all American citizens. I'd look for a new lawyer, post-haste. I don't want anyone to represent me who doesn't think that all Americans deserve equal protection under the law.

Just saying.  

I'm not a player, I just Tweet a lot: @KathTX

---

by: Katherine Haenschen @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 05:14:58 AM UTC

The lawyer is the firm... (0.00 / 0)

Part of every penny you give a lawyer in a firm goes to the firm. So you simply boycott the firm. And everyone who does business with the firm.  Most people don't of course. But those who do feel much better having stood up for something right instead of acquiescing to something wrong.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Thu Nov 27, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the irony (4.00 / 2)

I find irony in the complaining all of these people have for being blacklisted, while at the same time Family Research Council and other organizations have boycotted LGBT supportive businesses for years.

---

by: John McClelland @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 04:52:22 AM UTC

Game Over on Privately Held Beliefs (0.00 / 0)

Dan Savage Nails It

Richard Raddon is, or was, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival.

http://slog.thestranger.com/sl...

Raddon released a statement that said, in part, "I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights." Except for when they're not-and Raddon also believes that the religious should wield a veto over other peoples' civil rights. He goes on to whine about being a "devout and faithful Mormon," and about how his contribution to "Yes on 8" was a "private matter." Uh... no. A donation to a political campaign is a public matter; and civil marriage rights for same-sex couples did not infringe upon the religious freedom of Mormons, devout or otherwise.

Bill Condon, the gay guy who directed of Dreamgirls, attempted to get Raddon's back: "Someone has lost his job and possibly his livelihood because of privately held religious beliefs."

No. No. No. Raddon lost his job due to criticism of his public political actions, not his private religious beliefs, and his public political actions were a part of the public record. . . . [H]e helped fund a political campaign to strip a vulnerable minority group of its civil rights.

Emphasis Original.

These donors made public, not private, political speech, and public statements are subject to testing in the marketplace, both of ideas and of economics.  Freedom does entail a certain amount of responsibily.  Why are they so ashamed now of these contributions?

Logic and an open mind are more useful than common sense.

---

by: othniel @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 05:09:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But they are "godly" people... (0.00 / 0)

The founding fathers really blew it. The First Amendment should have guaranteed freedom of religion and freedom from religion.  

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 10:51:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They are one in the same (0.00 / 0)

You missed that point big time. Freedom of religion IS freedome from religion. It's your choice.

One of my favorite set of lines from Bruce Almighty:

God: There're only two rules: You can't tell anybody you're God. Believe me, you don't want that kind of attention. And you can't mess with free will.
Bruce: Can I ask why?
God: Yes, you can! That's the beauty of it!

---

by: RBearSAT @ Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 14:04:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not in California they're not... (0.00 / 0)

There is no separation of church and state in California.

The Mormons have declared, again, that this is a Christian nation. Every time a fundamentalist or even a "mainstream" church declares this is a Christian nation, there is no freedom from religion.

We may have become more secular in terms of both the laws and the courts, including the Supreme Court, but quite a few judges and justices still apply "biblical law" to their decisions in this country. When they do so, there is no freedom from religion.

Perhaps you are a Christian. Christians tend to blind themselves to the reality that there is neither freedom of religion nor freedom from religion in this country because they have never been discriminated against on the basis of religion. Which is why freedom of religion had to finally be protected by the Civil Rights Act. Along with other groups that Christians had previously discriminated against.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 23:51:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

California voters and religion (0.00 / 0)

The voters of California have spoken. Blind hatred of Christianity won't change that fact. Plenty of non-Christians voted against gay marriage. Discrimination against prop 8 supporters is sour grapes.

---

by: Bluefish @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:03:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sour grapes? (0.00 / 0)

The blind hatred of homosexuals by Christians is what spoke in California. And I doubt the number of "non-Christians" was significant enough to have had much bearing.  

Who is discriminating against who in this?  Discriminating against those who discriminate to me is perfectly acceptable. It also reflects the principles set forth in our Constitution.  And particularly with regard to the 14th Amendment which clarified the concept of "all men are created equal."  It's a shame we had to have the 14th Amendment. Or the Civil Rights Act.

The voters may have voted. The courts may overrule the voters. On constitutional grounds. The Constitution protects us from the "majority rule" when the "majority rule" is contrary to the principles of the Constitution.

Intersting to note the two main religious groups which urged passage of Proposition 8.  The Mormon Church which is based on a bastardization of both the Koran and the Bible and was founded by a polygamist and the Catholic Church which has been forced to spend billions to settle lawsuits filed against its priests who thought the altar boys were play toys.

Let's talk "family values" with regard to the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church.  They are the worst examples of family values unless you believe hypocrisy is a value.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:59:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Invalid argument (0.00 / 0)

Only 20% of Americans regularly attend church. Non-Christians decided this election.

---

by: Bluefish @ Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 17:44:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]